Why does the US dollar still have any value?

Our money is no longer backed by anything. The US dollar is in demand (worth something) because of it being the world reserve currency and most countries have to use it to buy oil (‪#‎PetroDollar‬). Banks can loan out 10x what they have (DEFINITION of ‘Fractional Reserve Banking’ A banking system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash-on-hand and are available for withdrawal. This is done to expand the economy by freeing up capital that can be loaned out to other parties). The FED (Federal Reserve) is a private bank (http://www.businessinsider.com/who-actually-owns-the-federal-reserve-2013-10). The IMF (International Monetary Fund) sets the price of the gold you and I will never see (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fixing). Banks type money into existence. We all know that if everyone went to the banks to get all their money they would not be allowed. The bank literally doesn’t have it. Why do we accept it? Chase (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/11/19/246143595/j-p-morgan-chase-will-pay-13-billion-in-record-settlement) and Bank of America (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/30/7-years-on-from-crisis-150-billion-in-bank-fines-and-penalties.html) have been fined billions because they broke the law. They cheated veterans (http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2011/10/banks-cheat-veterans-out-of-millions/) and HSBC actually paid $1.9 BILLION because they enabled drug cartel money laundering(http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211). Thoughts?

Is Civil Forfeiture Theft?

I’m sure that many of you have heard of Civil Forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is a tool used by police to seize money, cars, or property that is believed to have been used in a crime (without obtaining either a warrant or probable cause). Since it is a civil procedure against property, not a person, there need not be a criminal conviction. In fact many times people are not actually charged or convicted of a crime. Many of you have seen the video of the hot dog vendor that had money taken out of his wallet by a University of California officer that went viral recently.

report done by the Justice Department’s Inspector General states that since 2007, the DEA has seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of involvement with the drug trade. But 81 percent of those seizures, totaling $3.2 billion, were conducted administratively, meaning no civil or criminal charges were brought against the owners of the cash and no judicial review of the seizures ever occurred. *That total does not include the dollar value of other seized assets, like cars, homes, electronics and clothing.

Some states have signed bills into law which make it so police actually have to arrest and charge a person with a crime before attempting to seize and keep their money and property under the state’s asset forfeiture laws. For many years, one of the primary drivers of these perverse incentives has been a federal practice called equitable sharing. Under this practice, state and local law enforcement can have a seizure adopted by the federal government—that is to say, placed under federal jurisdiction—and be allowed to keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds from the adopted seizures, with the remaining 20 percent going to federal agencies.

The Justice Department have recently announced their plans to reinstate the use of asset forfeiture, especially for drug suspects — making it easier for local law enforcement to seize cash and property from crime suspects and reap the proceeds. When asked why the DOJ would override the will of over 20 states that do not want their citizens subject to this, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein repeatedly claimed that this practice will help solve the opiate problem in america. He didn’t mention that we are in control of the country in which 90% of opium is grown.

In my opinion it’s common sense that if you should have to prove guilt before taking peoples money or property. Just being suspected of having money that came from drugs should not be enough for the state to take it. It’s extremely clear that the police are now used as a revenue stream rather than true defenders of the people. Now with the reversal of the ban against the military selling surplus military equipment to local police departments, i bet some of the seized money will go toward buying military vehicles for hometown use. YAY!

Since there is no doubt that some of the money taken by police departments belonged to people that never committed a crime, It’s very easy to say there is some theft involved. In my opinion many laws don’t actually stop people from breaking them, but the more laws the more money can be made. If you were pulled over and a cop said he smelled marijuana and found a box of sandwich baggies, should that be enough to take all the money in your wallet?

Do you think that police should be able to prove in court that a person has committed crimes or made the seized money through criminal activity, before the police are able to take money or property from an individual?

Why are we sending more troops to Afghanistan?

It seems like more American troops will be on their way to Afghanistan. It’s been almost 16 years since we invaded that country to destroy Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban, after the the events of September 11th 2001. Our country was pissed and it seemed like we would pretty much invade anywhere to show that we’re not to be messed with.  The hunt for Osama had most of the country praising our military and our invasions of sovereign countries. American flags and never forgets were everywhere. There was a surge in enlistment and i’m guessing the big war contractors were excited about the new war that had no end in sight.

A couple years later our government got into the Weapons of Mass Destruction lies so that we could invade Iraq as well. All in the hopes that we could destroy “terrorism”. It’s extremely clear now that we had other motives when it came to invading Iraq. When you invade a sovereign country based upon proven lies it’s easy to think there must have been some other reason of us invading. After the invasion of Iraq we have created a new hotbed for terrorism. We have destabilized the middle east and created even more terrorists from our killing of innocent civilians. Big corporations made a lot of money while people on all sides died.

When we entered Afghanistan the Taliban was actually destroying Opium crops. Following an edict issued by the Taliban’s reclusive leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, declaring opium to be un-Islamic. In 2004 the poppy production would start an upward trend that has not dropped back to the 2001 low point of production. In 2001 reports suggested poppy production was down to 8,000 Hectares, compared to the 225,000 hectares in 2014. In 2016 it was at around 200,000 hectares. Needless to say, since we have been on the ground in Afghanistan production has increased immensely.

Once production started booming again under the watch of the US military, an opiate problem started hitting America and the rest of the world very hard. Big pharma was pushing opiates on anyone that had a sickness and once those people ran out of prescribed drugs, they hit the street. The Heroin epidemic seems to correlate very well with the timeline of increased opium production in Afghanistan. In my opinion i think there are some people tied to our government that are making a lot of money right now. If you think the US soldiers are guarding the fields or not, you must ask yourself why have we not destroyed those fields after having those crops ruin so many lives here in our country.

The war in Afghanistan is mostly forgotten by many Americans due to the constant barrage of other things to be worried about.  We have been there since kids that are 15 were born. Out of sight out of mind. The new increase in troops to fight back against the Taliban is quite telling of our success in these 16 years. Have we made any progress? How long will these wars last? We have done an excellent job of destabilizing entire countries and giving terrorist plenty of room to grow. (Some with direct funding from the US)

In my opinion war against Terrorism is not suppose to end. It’s a way for companies to make big money and to push our agenda in the region. When you invade based upon lies there must always be some reason for war that we’re not told. It’s clear that these wars and invasions have not been the answer to “terrorism”. 16 years in and we are still sending more kids to potentially die. The idea of stopping terrorism with war just doesn’t seem to make much sense to me. I understand we can’t go back and fix the mistakes made by our government at this point, but can we stop ourselves from funding more mistakes in the future?